Kinds of Organizational Authority: the Informal

Last time, we examined formal kinds of organizational authority — those that are conferred by institutions or by the organization itself. They are the kinds of authority that are most often in our awareness. Probably at least as important, however, is informal authority — that conferred by the people of the organization without the approval of the organization.

Because organizations are so complex that we cannot possibly formalize all needed interactions, informal authority is essential. But it is also threatening, because it can undermine the intentions of the organization. Here are three examples.

Affective authority

Affective authority influences by means of affect or presentation. In person or in recorded media, affective authority depends on charisma, manner, and demeanor. But it can also include eloquence, bearing, anger displays, charm, enticement, seduction, and more. In print or recordings, it further depends on production qualities such as design and aesthetics. It is the principal means by which we motivate and inspire.

Because of its power, affective authority can threaten the organizational mission. Its power derives from its access to our emotions, outside our awareness. The threat to the organization arises because affective authority can lead us to make choices that undermine or conflict with organizational missions.

Bargain authority

Bargain authority derives Because of its power, affective
authority can threaten the
organizational missionfrom bargains — written or unwritten — between people. In the bargain, one or several parties cede specific, defined authority to another, usually for compensation. Once the bargain is struck, either party can invoke the bargain to influence the other with respect to future bargains decisions.

In healthy cultures, unwritten bargains proliferate. People honor them and value others who do. Some do abuse bargain authority, by reneging on or re-interpreting bargains, or by using bargains to manipulate or coerce others. In toxic cultures, bargain authority abusers succeed, but only at high cost to the organization. In healthy cultures, bargain authority abusers generally fail because they quickly exhaust the pool of potential bargain partners.

Afflictive authority

Afflictive authority derives from the ability to inflict shame, pain, blackmail, threats, and other punishments or disincentives. Anyone willing to afflict others can potentially exercise afflictive authority.

Afflictive authority is essential to human society because it is our primary means of personal defense. But it is also the basis of bullying. It is from skillful use of afflictive authority that bullies maintain their influence over others, including not only their immediate targets, but the bulk of the rest of the population that surrounds them. Afflictive authority is also found in ordinary toxic conflict. For example, in feuds or duels, the parties usually confer afflictive authority on each other. It is the principle vehicle they use to influence each other.

As you go through the day, notice examples of these kinds of authority in action. Do you notice any other kinds?   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Organizational Change:

Look Before You Leap

When we execute complex organizational change, we sometimes create disasters. It's ironic that even in companies that test their products thoroughly, we rarely test organizational changes before we "roll them out." We need systematic methods for discovering problems before we execute change efforts. One approach that works well is the simulation.

The Ties that Bind

Changing anything in an organization reveals how it's connected to its people, to its processes, to its facilities, and to the overall context. Usually, these connections reach out much further into the organization than we imagine.

Comfortable Ignorance

When we suddenly realize that what we've believed is wrong, or that what we've been doing won't work, our fear and discomfort can cause us to persevere in our illusions. If we can get better at accepting reality and dealing with it, we can make faster progress toward real achievement.

The Expectation-Disruption Connection

In technology-dependent organizations, we usually invest in infrastructure as a means of providing new capability. But mitigating the risk of disruption is a more powerful justification for infrastructure investment, if we understand the Expectation-Disruption Connection.

Contrary Indicators of Psychological Safety: II

When we begin using new tools or processes, we make mistakes. Practice is the cure, but practice can be scary if the grace period for early mistakes is too short. For teams adopting new methods, psychological safety is a fundamental component of success.

See also Organizational Change and Organizational Change for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 14: Working with the Overconfident

A cognitive bias known as the Overconfidence Effect causes us to overestimate the reliability of our judgments. Decisions we make based on those judgments are therefore suspect. But there are steps we can take to make our confidence levels more realistic, and thus make our decisions more reliable. Available here and by RSS on May 14.

And on May 21: Mismanaging Project Managers

Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don't grant those project managers control of needed resources. Nor do they hold project sponsors or other senior managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with project work. Here's a catalog of behaviors worth looking at. Available here and by RSS on May 21.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info